what is the best documantary format: interlaced or progressive?

[Peter Moretti]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

I'm shooting everything 24F (I'm in NTSCland) with my XH A1. I've shot with it on two different documentaries that have played theatrically and on cable. There is no problem with FCP in editing HDV in the progressive modes. Sony Vegas also handles it OK. Avid, however, does not. ...

Bill,

Just to let you know, starting with version 3.5, Avid will capture Canon's 24F, but it cannot capture the tape's timecode.

This is a hassle, but probably not a deal killer. It's also not entirely clear that there isn't some subtle issue when 24F's timecode b/c quite a few NLE's have had problems w/ it. Avid is very stringent with timecode b/c it assumes you might want to recapture and conform at a higher quality format. This is probably not going to be the case w/ HDV since the data rate is so low, no down-convert during intial capture is going to be performed.

And of course Avid handles many other 24P formats just fine.

[Peter Moretti]

I'd shoot 24P simply also b/c 1/48th shutter will give you more light than 1/60th.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Rick L. Allen

Finally 1080p or 1080i is the easiest to convert or downconvert to other formats.

YIKES, that I'll disagree with. Given the number of posts on DVI about how much 1080 downconverts look awful, I'll happily stick with my 720P60. Frame rate downconverts easily to 60i and 720 looks better (IMHO) than 1080 when downconverted to NTSC/480. Going to PAL may be altogether a different story because the math is different.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Rick L. Allen

Shoot the format your end user/broadcaster wants. Careful consideration should always be given to your work flow and final delivery before the camera is ever turned on.

ABSOLUTELY correct.

[Peter Moretti]

Shaun, what shutter speed do you use when shooting 60P?

[Liam Hall]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

ABSOLUTELY correct.

No, not correct at all. Well partly correct:) All broadcasters have delivery specs that should be adhered to, but that doesn't always include a preference over interlaced or progressive acquisition format.

Also, the OP didn't state this was a broadcast documentary, so again I advise make a decision on which you prefer, but with the added caution that it must fit your delivery specs.

[Shaun Roemich]

Peter: whatever shutter speed is appropriate for my material. NORMALLY, I use 1/60th if I'm looking for "normal" motion characteristics and/or I may be working under ballasted lights (like fluorescents) but if I need a strobe effect OR to stop motion, I'll shutter up as required.

[Shaun Roemich]

Liam: I don't disagree with your comment but given the sheer number of motion artifacts I see on broadcast TV that I can safely assume are a DIRECT result of wrong field order or 3:2 pulldown or bad transcoding I maintain that is SAFEST to shoot and deliver in the same format. Do I? Heck no, BUT I'm knowledgeable enough about MY workflow to know where the "pinchpoints" are and avoid them.

Broadcast standards exist for a reason: the broadcaster has little to no interest in working with a small indie producer to fine tune THEIR workflow so that material that completely disregards well thought out submission protocols can be ingested at cost of time and labour to the broadcaster. AGAIN, the above assumes broadcast delivery.

DV/DVCam was pretty much the WORST thing to happen to broadcast TV as the field order is reversed from the CCIR601 standard and has different pixel/line attributes. It revolutionized acquisition but has caused SO MANY issues with broadcast video from small indie producers that don't do the due diligence in supplying appropriate content.

[Liam Hall]

I hear you Shaun. Luckily in PAL land issues over pulldown and inverted field dominance are minimal and when we're working with a national broadcaster there are strict guidelines, but there are also choices of taste. I guess the trick is to know the difference between a stylistic decision and delivery requirement.

Liam.

[Dave Allen]

What are the disadvantages of shooting at 1080i and deinterlacing it?

[Federico Palma]

Hi all... Well this is some interesting topic, glad to find it here and as a talk about look and viewer perception as a "delivery" atribute, instead that a mere tech thing.

In guess that, in the land of the third-eye blind, Perception is God!!! We tend more and more to think in terms of "perceived quality" and "perceived obsolescence" (and worst: planned obsolescene), and becoming more and more emprisoned by technicalities that keeps us away from the old good road of enlightment and truth. A shame.

Anyway, I think this topic (the starting question that opens this one) arises from the whole lot of options available this days. But, you must know once you took one way (either by chosing a given mode, or a device with a given method) you better stick to it.

Deinterlacing is a serious quality compromise. It will kill detail, no mather how filmic you may see it. If you shot interlace, keep it that way till the end. By then, if you want to deliver for a non-interlaced medium, well, is up to you. Better have a good processing workflow!
Not to say, if you combine deinterlacing with downconversion!!! Creepy!

And I'm saying this as a "serial deinterlacer" on recovery! It was fun, but now is all over thanks god!! I've renounced to any form of process leading to frameblending (speed changes, negative speeds). I simply prefer to keep my image as clean and even across the the project as I can.

There was something around in previous posts, is that thing of amateur/pro around interlaced/progressive. I guess what is really amateurish is tryng to pass deinterlaced for progressive, clip framerate changes for slo-mo, DV for 16mm... And the list goes on an on...

I've using the old deinterlacing trick since the early days of DV. It was easy to stand out of the crowd if you knew how to postproduce your video... a deinterlace here and a letterbox there, some contrast or color punch, and you were making something more "filmic"... Yes, I'm talking of student work, as nobody on TV gave a heck about filmic gimmiks... They wanted, and still want kosher video for broadcast (and of course, prefer not to show 15 minutes dreary films of hippie vampires). But it was a hit, and everybody was asking how you did it!!!

But then, the cinelook, cineframe, 24p frenzy took over the world, and everybody was doing that someway or the other... Think about the Z1s and the P2s and the DoF adaptors... All this goldrush for the "poor man's cine(look)" has produced millons of videos, that at the end are to be undeliverable. Not only in terms of being or not broadcast kosher, but in the means their own makers didn't have a clue about what to do after showing to friends and not being selected in any festival... Not to say that most of us are really narrative handicapped!!! The reality is that you can't make marble from flintstone, no mather how you polish it...

Sorry for ranting, people, just my few first posts on DVinfo and I'm quite excited. ;)

Saludos desde Patagonia!!!

[Felix van Oost]

Originally Posted by Vasco Dones

that my main customer (Swiss Public Broadcasting) in 2012
will be switching all its six channels to HD in the 720/50p flavor.
Other European brodcasters will do the same,
and it appears that 720/50p will be the de facto European HD standard.

Thanks for that!
Do you know if they're thinking about implementing 1080p at all anytime soon?